Bombay High Court
Pravin Manikrao Gohotre And ... vs Education Officer (Sec.) Z.P. ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp1038.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1038 of 2015
1.
Pravin Manikrao Gohotre,
aged about 31 years,
resident of Post - Ekdra,
Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati.
2. Sagar Purushottam Akarte,
aged about 29 years,
resident of Sendurjanaghat,
Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
1. Education Officer
[Secondary],
Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Madam
Cama Road,
Mumbai-400 032.
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:42:26 :::
wp1038.15
2
3. Janata High School,
Khairgaon,
Tq. Narkhed,
Distt. Nagpur,
through its Principal.
4. Sevadal Education Society,
Mowad,
Distt. Nagpur, through
its Secretary. ..... Respondents.
ig *****
Mr. H. S. Chitaley, Adv., for the petitioners.
Mrs. Deshmukh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Adv., for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
*****
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 01st September, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.]:
01. Heard finally.
02. The petitioners were declared surplus in 2014 when they
wp1038.15
were Shikshan Sevaks. The petitioners have approached this Court
with a submission that by that time, the Management had already
confirmed them and a proposal for approval was sent to Education
Department.
03. Learned Adv. Mr. H.A. Deshapnde appearing for the
Management submits that Staff Justification for the year 2013-14 was
never acted upon. He further states that that Staff Justification also
came belatedly, i.e., in the Academic Year 2014-15.
04. We find that this Court issued interim orders on 7th April,
2015, and, therefore, the petitioner no.1 continued with the same
management.
05. Our attention has been drawn to a Govt. Resolution dated
27th June, 2016. By that Govt. Resolution, Staff Justifications for the
years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are looked into and a direction has been
issued that even Shikshan Sevaks rendered surplus in those years
should not be terminated, but absorbed elsewhere.
06. Learned Adv. Mr. Chitaley for the petitioners in this
wp1038.15
background submits that when the impugned orders were issued on
29th and 31st January, 2015, the petitioners had ceased to be
Shikshan Sevaks. He further submits that vacancies are available with
petitioners' employer only and as such there is no question of sending
the petitioners anywhere else now for their absorption. He contends
that even if the Govt. Resolution dated 27th June, 2016 is extended to
the petitioners by treating them as Shikshan Sevaks, as the tenure of
three years was already completed in Academic Year 2014-15 only,
there is no question of shifting the petitioners anywhere else.
07. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader states that though the Govt.
Resolution dated 27th June, 2016 considers the Staff Justifications for
the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, she needs time to obtain
instructions about its application in the present matter.
08. The learned counsel for Management submits that all
disputed issues can be looked into by Education Department in the
backdrop of the Govt. Resolution dated 27th June, 2016.
09. We find that as the petitioner no.1 is continuing with the
very same employer and that employer had in Academic Year 2014-15
wp1038.15
itself found that he has satisfactorily completed the period of three
years and submitted a proposal for grant of permanency to him as
Asstt. Teacher, interest of justice can be met with by directing the
respondent no.1 to look into the entire controversy and to take a
suitable decision in accordance with law.
10.
We direct the parties to appear before the respondent no.1
on 04th October, 2016 and to abide by his further instructions in the
matter. The said authority shall attempt to take a decision within next
three months. Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue till
then and for a further period of two weeks, if the order is adverse to
the petitioner no.1.
11. In relation to petitioner no.2, submission is, because of
interim orders of this Court, he has also satisfactorily completed three
years of service as a Shikshan Sevak, we find that the issue also can be
looked into by the respondent no.1. Interim order in his case shall
continue to operate till the respondent no.1 decides the controversy.
12. Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.
wp1038.15
13. Amount of Rs. 50,000-00 [rupees fifty thousand only] has
been deposited by the respondent no.1 as per orders dated 15th
February, 2016. Upon oral request made by learned Asstt. Govt.
Pleader, we permit the respondent no.1 to withdraw it with accrued
interest.
Judge
ig Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 02nd Sept. 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
-0-0-0-0-
wp1038.15
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 25th Aug., 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
-0-0-0-0-
wp1038.15
